Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <> Tue, 04 October 2011 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5C421F8CF9 for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.703
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AmTQUKqUVO3M for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01F521F8CD6 for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 4017EB01B7; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:01:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66E18B019A; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:01:35 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:01:34 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <><><><><><> <> <>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 06:58:34 -0000


On Oct 4, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:

> Hi Inaki,
> Hope you agree that Real-time communication in web is possible without RTCWeb standard and it is clearly stated in RTCWeb charter first line as well "There are a number of proprietary implementations that provide direct
>  interactive rich communication using audio, video, collaboration,
>  games, etc. between two peers' web-browsers.". I understand that jquery or libjingle library may act as an alternative but it is far better in case signaling protocol is provided in the browser platform itself. 
> As a RTCweb developer, the standard signaling protocol helps as follows:
> 1) there is no need to peek into each license of jquery library and understand the terms and conditions for developing the real-time application.

This is something you always need to do regardless of the project IMHO, you need to check that all libraries you use are fine with your license ASO, I don't see how RTCWeb is different here.

> 2) No need of every browser user to download jquery library from each website. Unlike few number of E-mail provider (gmail, yahoo, hotmail), the real-time application provider will be huge. But number of browser is going to be countable and not as much as real-time websites are.

What is "huge" for you these days? Assuming it's a JS library, it can be compressed.

> 3) I heard from web developer about browser compatible jquery development story which is same as SIP interop issues. 

Yet you are bringing a new iterop issue to the table: SIP or XMPP <-> the protocol in the browsers.

> 4) Perform of the native signaling protocol will be better than jquery library. Please note that plugin is forbidden in RTCWeb client (browser).

Well, it's a client, not a server, so performance will definitely not be an issue.

I didn't get that last part, do you mean that plugins are forbidden in RTCWeb client? Anyway, JS is enough. I'm not sure about Googles' plans with regards to NaCl, but if they plan to push that technology forward so that other browsers implement it, the signaling could even be done in C, in case you are worried about performance, though I know it's not an issue.


Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects